The role of government in a free society

[Guest profgunner]

I've been watching with fascination the discussion now underway in the supreme court concerning Obamacare. It's led me to consider again the role of government (especially at the federal level) in our lives. So, I'm curious to know how many of you think the federal government should be able to:

a.) define marriage exclusively as a covenant between a man and woman

b.) prohibit restaurants from refusing to serve customers of a particular race or ethnicity

c.) require all adults to purchase health insurance

d.) require all adults to serve 4 years in the military

e.) levy and collect an income tax

EDIT: It occured to me that I should add the following: f.) should hospitals be required by law to render emergency treatment to those without insurance and who therefore cannot pay?

I personally don't think the feds have any business poking their noses in a.), c.), and e.) But I have to admit I struggle with b.) and d.)

And while I strongly believe that discrimination based on race or ethnicity is wrong, I am unsure as to whether it should be mandated by federal law.

Edited March 28, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest Ceolas]

According to the Constitution and its Articles and Amendments, the Federal Goverment should only take care of these items -

• Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
  
• The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
  
• Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
  
• Copyright protection;
  
• Coining money;
  
• Establishing post offices and post roads;
  
• Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
  
• Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
  

Anything else is reserved by the 10th amendment to Individual Citizens and the States.

So, by that, A, Probably B, and C are out of the picture.

D can fall under Defense, and E is fully in the Feds list.

You can probably make an argument that taxes raised to cover functions not authorized by the Constitution and Amendments are illegal...

I'm pretty staunchly supportive of state's rights, as I don't think someone from California has any right to make decisions about my future.

James Madison - “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.â€

[maroonandwhite]

A,B and E would be the only ones I would agree with. Being a christian nation and all I think it has already been made clear in the bible that marriage is between a man and woman. As far as the other two I don't have time to elaborate. (At work )

Edit: I will clarify my stance on A. I don't believe they should need to define it.

Edited March 28, 2012 by bendbolden

[Caster]

A) I don't care who a person wants to bind themselves to. If they want the tax credit so what? If they want the blessing and punishment that is marriage, it's none of my business as long as they ain't throwing up in my face.

B ) Free enterprise should be just that. If a company want to slit it's own throat by being selective, let them. With the upcoming generation of "Don't cares" those businesses will do well to keep the lights on.

C) ABSOLUTELY NOT. On the other side of the coin, if you cannot afford the service and DON'T have insurance, it should be at the hospitals discretion to help or let you die.

D) I like this one. It's my personal opinion that this should be mandatory for ALL boys of appropriate physical health. Girls too, but I'm a little more flexible there. This country is raising the largest generation of püΩΩies ever known to the world. I'm sorry but it's true. The wussification of amerika from political correctness and participation trophies is well underway. Spineless rags are the youth of this country. Take a clue from Israel on this one. Give these kids some pride and something to be proud OF.

E) I DO believe in a fair share of taxes. I despise the misappropriation of those taxes to feed lazy degenerate whore mongering baby factories from the ghetto. Flat rate with a cap. Stop punishing the prosperous because they actually wanna work for what they have. Stop laying the burden on the middle class. Pull your weight or STARVE AND DIE! Does that mean I would be not cool with help for the SEVERELY disabled, heck no. BUT, ohh my back hurts doesn't mean squat. Almost everyone can do SOMETHING. If you're crippled, get a desk job. If you're stupid pick up trash but DO SOMETHING even if it isn't necessarily cost effective. Able but lazy deserve to starve. Period.

F) NO.

BTW, you asked for it.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Caster

[Guest profgunner]

I just added another to the list, as it is pertinent to the insurance mandate clause: f.) should hospitals be required by law to render emergency treatment to those without insurance and who therefore cannot pay?

Edited March 28, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest 6.8 AR]

a,c and e, I agree with you.

a is only being introduced because another group wishes to redefine something considered sacred by others.

b I doubt that damage can be undone. Constitutionally it shouldn't be meddled with, but that already happened.

Mandating commerce in any form is unconstitutional, but a restaurant being told how to conduct it's affairs won't

work. BTW, it's still being done in spite of the law. Look at a bouncer in front of a disco who let's one in and

another not, based on purely subjective practice like how hot the girl is. Not much different, yet that somehow is

allowed.

d The Constitution doesn't provide for conscript service, even the draft is not in there, I think.

Income taxes are progressive in nature and punitive to the achiever. How they are still allowed, I don't understand.

Nothing fair about the way they are administered. Not everyone pays, yet, everyone votes on their benefit by way

of political shenanigans. Corrupt!

f Hill-Burton Act of 1947 was the mandate that started this and is just as unconstitutional, but it must have made

people feel good. It could have been dealt with differently other than a mandate by the feds.

[Guest profgunner]

So, by that, A, Probably B, and C are out of the picture.

If item "B" (discrimination based on race and/or ethnicity) is enforced by federal law, why can't "C" (Obamacare) follow? To allow one and not the other seems inconsistent. A strict reading of the constitution would (it seems to me) rule out federal enforcement of both B and C (and A). I guess this is where the political philosophy of an activist judiciary enters the picture.

Edited March 28, 2012 by profgunner

[Caster]

Trying to police racism is idiocy anyway. People just don't understand that these things will settle themselves as long as they don't turn violent. I wasn't kidding about this newer generation. The one thing the young generation have going for them is that racism is dying fast. YES, it still exists, and some people preach it HARD to their children but as a whole, it's dying. Kids today really don't care. Most young boys nowadays, if the girl looks good to him and she'll give him the time of day, it's on. Where she come from doesn't mean near what it used to. Neither does the opinions of either set of parents.

If a business doesn't want to serve white folk [i'll use my skin as example] then white folk will take their business elsewhere. Won't be long before others see that business as a joke and trade elsewhere too. AND, if the business does manage to prosper, so what as long as they pay their taxes. Why anyone would cry about a place they are not wanted is beyond me. If a place does not want me, then screw 'em! Moving on. I'm not filing a lawsuit because the other kids on the playground don't wanna be my friends. That's just sissy pansy wimp. {wussification of amerika remember?] PLUS, it all boils down to the same problem. I;ve said it so many times I feel like a scratched CD skipping. People just need to mind their own stinking business and keep their nose out of places where it isn't wanted. Why is this idea lost on the average american citizen I will never know.

[gregintenn]

a)NO

b)NO

c)NO

d)YES

e)NO

f)NO

[mav]

No on everything.

[Guest Smitty]

No on everything.

I agree with what he said.

[DaveTN]

I don’t think anyone should be forced to be in the military and I don’t think there was ever a need for the draft. Yes, I served in the military and I wouldn’t want anyone working with me that was being forced to be there.

Without E we would all be speaking either German or Japanese.

Emergency care in a “life threatening†situation should never be allowed to be refused. If it isn’t life threatening they should be able to turn you away as long as they get no funding from state of federal government.

[1gewehr]

I find it interesting how many folks here believe in slavery. What else do you call forcing someone to work wihout fair compensation against their will? Whether it's making a doctor treat someone's runny nose while knowing he won't get paid for it, or forcing someone to give up 2 years serving at the whims of Congress, it's still stealing part of someone's life. I served in the military with the last of the draftees in the 1970's. They were about as motivated and enthusiastic as you would expect slaves to be.

The income tax is interesting. The 16th Amendment says Congress can tax the income of individual Americans. But Article I, Section 9 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, it seems to me that the Constitution says that EVERY person must be taxed the same. For 2009, that means that in order to collect the same $865 Billion from the approximately 310 million residents, each man, woman, and child will need to pony up $2790, regardless of income. Considering that right now about 50% of all people with income pay NO income tax, that's a huge difference.

So, on 'a' through 'f', my answer is 'no'.

[Mike.357]

The gov't should not be involved in any of it.

Of course thats just too simple for power mongers to comprehend.

Live and let live (or die as the case may be)

[f3joel]

I would also have to say no on everything.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I find it interesting how many folks here believe in slavery. What else do you call forcing someone to work wihout fair compensation against their will? Whether it's making a doctor treat someone's runny nose while knowing he won't get paid for it, or forcing someone to give up 2 years serving at the whims of Congress, it's still stealing part of someone's life. I served in the military with the last of the draftees in the 1970's. They were about as motivated and enthusiastic as you would expect slaves to be.

The income tax is interesting. The 16th Amendment says Congress can tax the income of individual Americans. But Article I, Section 9 states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

So, it seems to me that the Constitution says that EVERY person must be taxed the same. For 2009, that means that in order to collect the same $865 Billion from the approximately 310 million residents, each man, woman, and child will need to pony up $2790, regardless of income. Considering that right now about 50% of all people with income pay NO income tax, that's a huge difference.

So, on 'a' through 'f', my answer is 'no'.

Your observations make a compelling case for the "Fair Tax" or, at least a flat tax, don't they? Less slavery

and less corruption.

[wjh2657]

No to everything.

[Guest profgunner]

Emergency care in a “life threatening†situation should never be allowed to be refused.

Why should an emergency room physician be required by law to render services to someone that cannot pay?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Why should an emergency room physician be required by law to render services to someone that cannot pay?

They shouldn't, and they probably would still treat life threatening conditions if one couldn't pay. They would

at least be able to seek remedy from the courts. Hill-Burton Act of 1947 made it that they "had" to. Mistaken

altruistic crap back then.